Highway Oddities

[74/171FAN]

VA 144 is signed north-south between US 1/US 301 in Colonial Heights and VA 36 even though it is more east-west   Of course Colonial Heights decided to put up a VA 144 West shield just east of Conduit Rd and the ramp to I-95 
Speaking of I-95 the 1/4 mile sign on VA 144 North for the fairly new I-95 North ramp

[Bryant5493]

That middle photo ("To I-95/VA-144 West") is an ugly sign.


Be well,

Bryant

[WillWeaverRVA]

The Clearview sign is uglier. They probably could've opted for a slightly larger sign with the shield on it.

[Bryant5493]

Yeah, that 95 is squished real tight inside of that shield. Then the five looks a lot bigger than the nine, but maybe it's me.


Be well,

Bryant

[74/171FAN]

Here's one for Hampton Roads on US 17 South at VA 105 and SR 1050(I don't know how long this has been there though). 

[Bryant5493]

These two signs are placed on the same street by two different counties (Clayton and Fulton counties, GA) -- directly across the street from each other, as this street is on the county line. The problem is that it's inconsistent.



Here's a map to show you why it's inconsistent.




Be well,

Bryant

[luokou]

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

[Duke87]

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

The New Jersey Turnpike is also fond of using "Thru Traffic" as a control city.

Although, what bothers me about that more than the laziness/simplicity of it is how the people writing it can't spell. "Thru" isn't a word. If it said "Through Traffic", it would be better.

[Terry Shea]

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

The New Jersey Turnpike is also fond of using "Thru Traffic" as a control city.

Although, what bothers me about that more than the laziness/simplicity of it is how the people writing it can't spell. "Thru" isn't a word. If it said "Through Traffic", it would be better.

The problem is that most people can't spell (or read properly).  If the sign actually read "Through Traffic" instead of "Thru Traffic" many people would get confused and think it says "Trough Traffic", and confuse it for being a pig route!

[Alps]

I've seen two variations of Pennsylvania abbreviations on NJ signs that bug me.  One is "Penna".  Not "Penna."  Notice the placement of the dot.  So I'm going to Penna, NJ?  The best, though, is "P.A."  NJ and N.J. are interchangeable.  PA and P.A. are not.  Pennsylv Ania?

[deathtopumpkins]

And also theres the whole fact that "Thru" is shorter than "Through".

And lol Alps, never seen that before.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I've seen two variations of Pennsylvania abbreviations on NJ signs that bug me.  One is "Penna".  Not "Penna."  Notice the placement of the dot.  So I'm going to Penna, NJ?  The best, though, is "P.A."  NJ and N.J. are interchangeable.  PA and P.A. are not.  Pennsylv Ania?

I've seen that too many times and never thought of that. Then again, Pennsylvania uses "Penna" all the time on its PA Turnpike shields.

Someone really ought to establish a town in NJ and name it Penna, just to annoy people.

[akotchi]

I live in southeastern PA, close to N.J., and I have seen many instances of "Penna" showing up on guide signs on the roads that go there.  I have seen "Penn"  on the N.J. Turnpike at Exit 6.  I have also seen the state fully spelled out.  I have not seen P.A. anywhere, though.  (Where was this, Alps?)  These signs should have the approved control city instead, like Philadelphia or Allentown.

Penna, I guess, is what fits in the Turnpike shield, and I don't have an issue with that -- it is readily recognizable.

Punctuation is not supposed to be shown on guide signs -- I believe that is in the MUTCD. 

[WillWeaverRVA]

To go or to stop...?

[74/171FAN]

The intersection of Dimmock Pkwy and Southpark Blvd had the lights like that before(I think thaat it still exists).  BTW What roads actually intersect here? 

[PAHighways]

There are many left turn signals in Pennsylvania like that, but none with conflicts like the one in the picture.

[corco]

To go or to stop...?

We have those in Laramie (on westbound Grand Ave at 3rd St), and there was one in Tacoma (from the I-705 North end ramp onto Stadium Way) too. It means "Stop unless you're turning right," which I don't see how that is confusing

[WillWeaverRVA]

The intersection of Dimmock Pkwy and Southpark Blvd had the lights like that before(I think thaat it still exists).  BTW What roads actually intersect here? 

This is at the intersection of Parham Rd (as VA 73) and a road leading into a shopping center near I-95.

[Michael]

Shouldn't it be a doughouse signal with a right arrow?

[WillWeaverRVA]

To go or to stop...?

We have those in Laramie (on westbound Grand Ave at 3rd St), and there was one in Tacoma (from the I-705 North end ramp onto Stadium Way) too. It means "Stop unless you're turning right," which I don't see how that is confusing

It's confusing here because we don't have those kinds of signals; it wouldn't make sense here because you can't go straight from that lane (or any lane).

[deathtopumpkins]

But shouldn't the whole right signal be for right turns, as it has a sign and corresponds to a right turn only lane?

[florida]

The signs adjacent to the signal heads make it pretty clear that there is one lane turning left, and one lane turning right.  Only reason you'd have a doghouse signal would be if you had more than one movement for a given lane, or an option to go straight (which obviously doesn't exist here).

I think the intent here is to have two red lenses signifying that the main movement (turning left) is red, but right turns are allowed.

Here in FL, there are doghouses for dead-ending intersections like this. The signals themselves will have double green arrows for both the right and left turn lanes (see Bunnell Road at Bear Lake Rd in Altamonte Springs), or the arrows will be split both ways (see WB I-4 off-ramp at FL 414 Maitland Blvd). You'd be hard-pressed to find lights like the photo above, down here.

[roadfro]

If VDOT had a third signal head installed there, yes.  But again the intent, and the requirement, is to provide two red lenses for the primary movement (which IMO is the left turn here), as required by Section 4D.15 of the MUTCD:

A minimum of two signal faces shall be provided for the major movement on the approach, even if the major movement is a turning movement.

I understand what you're saying here.  I'd argue that the signs adjacent to the signal heads clearly indicate which movement they're intended for.  Plus, the fact that the right hand signal head uses a green arrow which clearly cannot function as the second signal head for the major/left turn movement during the green interval.  Thus,

Since the "right turn signal" is also serving as one of the two "left turn signals", this is why you have both the red lens and the green arrow when right turns are protected but left turns aren't.  Section 4D.07 of the MUTCD is applicable:

During the protected right-turn movement, the signal face shall simultaneously display:
A right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication, and
A circular signal indication that is the same color as the signal indication for the adjacent through lane on the same approach as the protected right turn.

The use of a green arrow implies that the right turn movement at this intersection is protected.  Also from MUTCD 4D.07 (Standard B #2), multiple colors in one signal face may not be illuminated simultaneously for a protected-only signal head:

CIRCULAR RED, right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications. At least one right-turn signal face shall be provided in addition to the two approach signal faces required in Section 4D.15 for the major movement. Only one of three colors shall be illuminated at any given time.

The doghouse signal head that florida described above might better convey the intent of "two signal heads for the major movement" requirement, but the MUTCD doesn't seem to have any language to support this.

[74/171FAN]

I don't have a photo but there's been an outroar in Petersburg at the intersection of US 301(S Crater Rd) and Wagner Rd because the city is trying to say that you can't turn right on red at a red arrow but I've always considered a red arrow like a red ball and that the only times "Right Turn on Red" is not allowed is when there is a "NO TURN ON RED" sign

[mapman]

I don't know if it's true in other states, but in California, a right-pointing red arrow means no right turns are allowed, just like a left-pointing red arrow means no left turns are allowed.